|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 8/14/2007 2:51:08 PM
Posts: 2,
Post ID: 95486
|
|
10/26/2009 12:00:00 AM
Let's discuss 'Goshen mayor faces questions about 'illegal gun' group'.
A number of Goshen residents are upset that Mayor Allan Kauffman joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a national lobbying coalition of mayors. The opposition isn't as much about the coalition's stated goals as it is about concerns over the potential for erosion of Second Amendment rights.
-from
the Truth
|
|
|
|
|
Master Contributor
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/27/2008 9:49:35 PM
Posts: 601,
Post ID: 95487
|
|
A number of Goshen residents are upset that Mayor Allan Kauffman joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a national lobbying coalition of mayors.
I think more people are upset that Mayor Kauffman joined the "What illegal aliens in Goshen club". Gang activity is rampant in Goshen with the illegal population. Gang graffiti is everywhere in the north side of Goshen. Mayor Kauffman needs to address his local problems. Get rid of the Illegals that openly show themselves to be in gangs and a lot of gun problems will take care of them self.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/15/2007 11:28:37 AM
Posts: 425,
Post ID: 95497
|
|
It's amazing to think that so often those in power fear their constituents. This article pointed out about how a person has to have a special license to carry a concealed weapon, but that right ends at the state line. Has anyone taken a look at the constitution and how the state of Vermont interprets the second amendment? You do not need register a gun there, nor is any special permit required to carry a concealed weapon. Why? Because the Constitution states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Unlike driving an automobile, which the government has determined is a PRIVILEGE, owning and carrying a gun is a right. I say dump the CCW law and let gun owners carry. The supreme court will uphold the state's rights to prohibit (or limit) gun carrying in government buildings.
As for Kaufman, he doesn't know what he's talking about. With the gang violence currently going on, he shows that he is unaware of the saying: "An armed society is a polite society". Criminals use guns because they know that most people don't. The number of victims armed when attacked are small. Indiana has a right to stand your ground law. To combat crime, it will take the general public to be able to defend itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Master Contributor
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/27/2008 9:49:35 PM
Posts: 601,
Post ID: 95500
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 3/22/2009 4:50:05 PM
Posts: 29,
Post ID: 95502
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/24/2007 2:14:18 PM
Posts: 59,
Post ID: 95504
|
|
| Following the same logic and thought process as the opponents want to point out, I believe we must conclude that those who are opposed to ILLEGAL guns must be thugs themselves wanting to commit crimes and be unfettered in doing so. They themselves must either be in a gang or wanting to join one. I am very concerned that there are people out there who want to promote violence, murder, and a whole host of other crimes that are often committed with guns. HMMMMMM Makes one wonder about their deeper intentions
|
|
|
|
|
Contributor
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/8/2009 9:50:13 AM
Posts: 102,
Post ID: 95521
|
|
Reminds me of a saying I once heard,"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.:
vandy
|
|
|
|
|
Master Contributor
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 5/24/2008 12:04:33 PM
Posts: 649,
Post ID: 95531
|
|
| I support mayor Kauffman's participation in MAIG. I like the ideas outlined by MAIG in their statements. Until I see some actual evidence that they are working beyond their stated intent, I will continue to support them and mayor Kauffman's involvement. The NRA's paranoid ramblings just don't cut it. Reminds me of the pro-choicers absolute resistance to any limitations on choice. Maybe if the gun rights wackos weren't so adamantly opposed to common sense restrictions on guns, the pro-choice wackos wouldn't be so opposed to common sense restrictions on abortion, like a no 3rd trimester abortions law. The middle ground should be the objective on these and numerous other issues. Give and take, ya know? BTW, I define "wackos" as those who are absolutely opposed to any and all restrictions.
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/2/2007 7:13:28 AM
Posts: 53,
Post ID: 95541
|
|
| Swiggy says "the Constitution states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." This is typical of gun rights "wackos." (thanks to SUV for that) Force the Constitution to mean what you want, rather than what it actually says. For the sake of this discussion, here is the 2nd amendment in its entirety: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Did everybody see that first part? You know, the part that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"... The Articles of Confederation - the first constitution of the colonies, ratified in 1877 - stated that "...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." At the time the Second Amendment was created, the militia was the military. They didn't have the four+ forces that serve us today. Could it be that the framers of United States Constitution (1887) intended this amendment as a means of keeping the military strong? If so, now that the militia is no longer our military force, is the amendment still relevant? Does it actually apply to individuals wanting to have guns for personal objectives? Before you start throwing insults my way, try answering my question with evidence from the time the Second Amendment was drafted. Afterall, the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted in terms of how our founding fathers intended it, is it not? I'm asking these questions not because I believe one way or the other, but because I'm trying to make up my mind what I believe, and because I encourage others to ponder what they believe, rather than just taking the NRA stance as unquestioned truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/15/2007 11:28:37 AM
Posts: 425,
Post ID: 95560
|
|
jhermsen (10/26/2009)
Following the same logic and thought process as the opponents want to point out, I believe we must conclude that those who are opposed to ILLEGAL guns must be thugs themselves wanting to commit crimes and be unfettered in doing so. They themselves must either be in a gang or wanting to join one.
I am very concerned that there are people out there who want to promote violence, murder, and a whole host of other crimes that are often committed with guns.
HMMMMMM Makes one wonder about their deeper intentions
What are "Illegal guns"? The Supreme Court upheld that convicted felons, minors, and the feeble minded should not have weaponry in the District of Columbia -vs- Heller. However, this should not prevent any free person from the possession and ownership of a firearm, not only in times of crisis, but for personal self defense.
Washington DC had their strict gun control laws, which only increased the amount of crime, struck down by the Supreme Court. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dcvheller.html) This is the first time in it's history that the Supreme Court has taken a stand on the second amendment, and, while there were some justices that dissented, but the majority ruled that DC's laws conflicted with the second amendment. This session, they have to make a similar ruling concerning the city of Chicago's strict gun control laws.
Basically, the current laws hinder the law abiding citizen in the course of owning and carrying a weapon. Criminals don't care about the laws concerning owning a gun.
I suggest you read the above link about the gun control decision.
|
|
|
|